Army recommends Medal of Honor for living recipient

[TheTokenGook]

Linkage (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/ap_medal_of_honor_070110/)

[Hokie173]

This guy deserves it, as do the two other Rock paratroopers who were nominated during this deployment. Its about time "dying" is dropped from the requirements for the Medal of Honor.

[Un4given]

Interesting. I wonder how many promo points that would equate to for a young E4 or E5. lol

Good on 'em whether he gets it or not.

[Un4given]

This guy deserves it, as do the two other Rock paratroopers who were nominated during this deployment. Its about time "dying" is dropped from the requirements for the Medal of Honor.

Is this the young RTO you mentioned? The single survivor of the attack?

[Hokie173]

No, this guy was the one who literally pulled his buddy from the hands of the Taliban who were trying to drag him away. I suspect if this one has gotten Pentagon approval, we may hear word on the other two in the coming weeks.

[TheTokenGook]

Is this the young RTO you mentioned? The single survivor of the attack?


No, this guy was the one who literally pulled his buddy from the hands of the Taliban who were trying to drag him away. I suspect if this one has gotten Pentagon approval, we may hear word on the other two in the coming weeks.

Any more info on these incidents?

[Skull6]

This section of that article that TG linked to just seems WRONG in the parts below.


"Officials have said it's hard to compare the number awarded since the 2001 start of the Afghanistan invasion with the hundreds awarded in World War II and Vietnam because warfare has evolved so much in recent decades.

Those earlier wars frequently involved close conflict with an organized enemy formation, for instance, while today's fighting is against non-uniformed insurgents who use remotely detonated roadside bombs, suicide bombers, sniper attacks and other tactics that avoid the risk of engaging personally with U.S. forces."

AR 600–8–22, dated 11 Dec 2006, says the following about the CMOH award criteria:


"The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit."

Looking into a much earlier edition of this same reg, I find that this criteria hasn't changed ONE LETTER in over 15 years. Sure would seem to me that one could EASILY argue that one (or both) of this portion of the criteria has been met:


"while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force;"

Freakin' reporters...& "officials" too!

P.S. If what our service members are doing in Afghanistan or Iraq isn't "engag{ing} in an action against an enemy of the United States" or "engag{ing} in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force," WTF are we sending them "over there" for?! (For the record: I don't mean this to sound as if I think ALL serving "over there" now deserve the CMOH. I meant it to mean that they've certainly met this portion of the award criteria criteria for the CMOH...but still understand that they must meet all of the criteria to be considered eligible.)

& Aries, close your eyes, as this next part might get your blood pressure up.

The fact that they're not releasing the Soldier's name, to keep him from embarrassment should he not receive it, makes some sense (but he should still receive SOME KIND of PUBLIC RECOGNITION for his actions, imo.) The statement about it possibly being viewed as something "political" is akin to me saying that "the sky is blue." The POTUS is the one who actually awards the decoration. Regardless of the POTUS' intent, he IS a political figure, & because of that someone's bound to claim that the act of award is "political."

Pres. Obama saying "Bombs away" whilst he defecates should in no way, shape or form be construed as the ending of some "political" action that he's taken. But I'm sure someone will.

Freakin' reporters...& "officials" too! ;)